I think I have found my favorite.

[Brian37]

Now mind anyone reading this I will STILL VOTE BLUE in the general. I think most in this current field all could make great presidents. But I've been listening to Kamala Harris on both economic and social issues and liking what I am hearing so far. 

Some have argued that being from California is going to an easy target for the GOP. If the GOP wants to go that route she can point out that Reagan was Governor of California.

I have to admit though, since it is this early on, I may change my mind. The primaries are far off in any case.

In general I like most of our field, Bernie and Warren and Booker and Harris, and Biden if he jumps in.

One of the problems with her being from California is that she won't be bringing any electoral college votes with her. California is a Deep Blue state, so there is no built in advantage to choosing a candidate from there. California is going to vote for the Dem nominee no matter where they are from. Their electoral votes are already ours.

This is why a lot of people are arguing for Biden and Brown. To win in 2020, we need to win back the rustbelt. Chances of victory are slim without it. Biden has huge name recognition. Brown has never lost a race, and he won despite Ohio leaning toward Republicans.

Bernie has proven that he is competitive the rustbelt.  So he is also a good choice if one is thinking in terms of taking the rust belt back (which is pretty much necessary to win in 2020).

Some say that Amy Klobuchar could be competitive in the rust belt, but they are saying that based on her being a centrist, and not on her having proven her competitiveness there.

It is hazardous to run a nominee whose competitiveness in the rust belt is unknown.  I will be watching Warren and Harris closely when they campaign through Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

Again, why was that not a problem for Reagan?

I agree the middle of the country is suffering rural anxiety and they are not too fond of coastal states. I get that. But how you counter that and appeal to the middle of the country, is to point out that coastal cities and suburb families are ALSO having a hard time. California may rake in the dough business wise say compared to Mississippi or West Virginia, but they also have a huge homeless problem. And I don't mean drug addicts or winos, but working class people who don't make enough to pay even rent.

Dems are not going to win if we ignore the rust belt for sure. But it also does us no good to simply stick to big cities/suburbs and the middle of the country too.

My point is we cannot get distracted by allowing the GOP to divide by state/ zip codes, no matter whom we nominate.

The poor urban black worker has the same problem the white poor rural worker has. Lack of economic stability. 

I simply like what I am hearing from Harris so far. And again, be it her or Bernie, no matter whom we put in the White House, that person isn't going to be a super hero with a cape. They'll still have to deal with a House and Senate and neither are going to get 100% of what they want all the time.

---

Will you do me a favor, give me some credit. This really is not about Bernie the individual, this is strictly strategy on my part. I promise I will support him in the general if he gets the nomination. I PROMISE.

But even if I voted for him in the primaries, and even if he gets the nomination, his problem will still be the bitter pill of Hillary supporters, whom also stupidly and wrongfully AS SUPPORTERS vilified him.

So you also have to think about whom he would put on his ticket, that will bring the party together as VP. I do honestly think that Hillary made a huge mistake not putting Bernie on her ticket. So again, even if he gets nominated, how does he unify the party and draw in swing voters without risking a repeat of 2016?

Our primary goal as a nation is to get the orange turd out of office. That is the most important goal right now.